This project investigates the disputed relationship between social integration of ethnic minorities and solidarity based on a unique micro-level dataset on Jewish victimization during the Holocaust in occupied Western Europe. Scholars working in the tradition of ethnic competition theory and the threat hypothesis argue that social integration reduces solidarity because it increases competition over scarce resources. Others claim that social proximity reduces rivalries between groups and enhances solidarity since it enables communication and increases interdependence between groups. To understand the link between social integration and solidarity, the investigator has developed a formal model that builds on both approaches and offers a new perspective. The model demonstrates that the relationship between intergroup integration and solidarity is not monotonic, as most scholars assume, but curvilinear. Initial increases in social integration result in lower levels of solidarity. Once groups move beyond a certain threshold, however, increases in social integration are translated into higher levels of solidarity. This suggests that theories grounded in ethnic competition shed light on the first half of this integration-solidarity curve and that the latter half can be understood in light of counterarguments to those theories.
The Holocaust in the Netherlands provides a unique, albeit tragic, laboratory to test this model. In some Dutch counties solidarity with Jews was higher and more Jews were able to survive with the help of Gentiles than in others, where solidarity was lower. The investigator will combine recently recovered archival information on occupations, marriage partners and residencies of all Jews living in occupied Holland with commemoration books and historical census data to compile a dataset on Jewish victimization and social integration at the municipality level, a geographical unit roughly comparable to a U.S. county. This allows him to test contending theories on a fine-grained level and in an important historical context.
This study has important intellectual and scholarly implications. First, existing comparative research on genocide in general and on the Holocaust in particular overlooks local dynamics of mass-killing, as it tends to treat genocide as a homogenous phenomenon. This research seeks to explain local differences in the intensity of genocide and in doing so zeros in on how local dynamics and interactions shape mass killing. Second, most systematic studies of the Holocaust are over-determined, in that there are more plausible explanations than cases. Studying the Holocaust on a sub-national level provides scholars with more cases that can be used to delineate between more and less plausible explanations. Third and most important, this study provides a unique assessment of competing theories on social integration, solidarity and conflict. These competing theories are not only relevant for the investigation of genocide, ethnic conflict and civil strife but also play prominent roles in the study of interstate war, peace building, immigrant integration and the strength of civil society as a whole. This project in particular is able to test systematically the micro-dynamics of conflict and solidarity when it matters the most: at the time the events themselves are unfolding.
This study also has important broader implications. The notion that cross-boundary communication reduces stereotypes and engenders trust has informed a wide array of policies aimed at conflict resolution and prevention, such as peace schools in Israel, residential mixing of immigrants and natives in Western Europe, and Muslim-Hindu dialogues in India. This project offers a novel empirical examination of the claim that underlies this category of policies. The project's theory and test can contribute to contemporary debates over conflict resolution by suggesting that integration may not solve problems immediately, but has important and positive long-term effects.
Why did some communities in Western-Europe during World War Two provide shelter to Jews while others collaborated with their persecution. This projects tries to to answer these questions and shed light on how context influences whether people are destructive and obedient or solidaristic and brave. In order to do so, the researchers first had to map local differences in the survival rates of Jews. The NSF-grant was used to digitilize registration of Jews living in the Netherlands and Belgium before the deportations took place. Combined with deportationlists this enabled them to construct a unique micro-level data of almost all Jews living in both countries. This dataset included information about their adress, familiy structure, profession, shelters, survival, and date of deportation (if deported). The local level survival rates are presented visually below. As we can see there are striking differrences within both countries. This raises inportant questions. How can one for instance explain the high surival rates of Jews living in the North-West of the Netherlands and how is it possible that somany Jews were vitimized in the Northern provinces in Belgium? Based on the data researchers can conduct targetted comparisons between specific regions that answer these questions. The potential impact of this database is illustrated by the fact that its release immediately sparkled public debate in Belgium about the local municipalities' responsibiliy for the Shoah. However, it is important to emphasize that this database's potential usage is not limited to the study of the Holocaust. It also forms an important resource for people who are interested in explaining the emergence of local pockets of solidarity, disobedience, cooperation and bravery.
